US may revise hormone replacement therapy warnings
HRT is taken to replace estrogen, the body stops producing after menopause -- when periods end permanently -- and helps relieve symptoms such as hot flashes, vaginal discomfort, and pain during sex.
But its use has plummeted in recent years amid concerns, including a possible link to invasive breast cancer.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chief Marty Makary, who convened Thursday's meeting of outside experts, told AFP: "We have to revisit these topics."
He argued that the framework that led to so-called "black box warnings" -- the strongest warning the FDA can require for prescription drugs -- "came from a different era."
"Not only is there no clinical trial showing an increase in breast cancer mortality, but there are also other tremendous long-term health benefits," Makary added.
The 12 experts convened by the agency said HRT's benefits go beyond easing menopausal symptoms. They cited evidence for reduced fracture risk, improved cardiovascular and cognitive health, and fewer urinary tract infections.
"Estrogen is the only well-established intervention to reduce the frequency of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, to the tune of 30 to 50 percent," said Vonda Wright, an orthopaedic surgeon at the University of Central Florida.
Roberta Diaz Brinton, director of the Center for Innovation in Brain Science, said her research suggests the reason two-thirds of people globally with Alzheimer's are women is not because they live slightly longer than men, but because the disease begins during the menopausal transition.
"Depending upon when hormone therapy is introduced... there's a significant reduction in risk of developing Alzheimer's disease," she said.
The University of Arizona researcher linked menopause to a drop in the brain's ability to metabolise glucose and a rise in protein plaque deposits.
Panellists blamed the collapse in HRT use on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a landmark clinical trial halted in 2002 after flagging a possible increased breast cancer risk -- findings they say were misinterpreted.
"Prescriptions for hormone replacement therapy plummeted in the United States, women flushed their pills down the toilet," Makary said in his opening remarks, mentioning his own mother's experience of multiple bone fractures in old age.
Critics of the WHI argue it included participants well past menopause -- when risks are higher and benefits lower -- and used outdated formulations no longer common today.
- Label changes -
Still, the issue remains divisive within the medical community.
HRT can be administered through various means and is given either as estrogen alone or with progesterone.
The FDA's own warning label for it cites risks including endometrial cancer, breast cancer, and life-threatening blood clots.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, who directs a project that promotes rational prescribing at Georgetown University, attended as an observer and criticized the lack of dissenting voices.
"This was a very one-sided panel of people who are all proponents of hormone therapy and who seem to have a very poor understanding of the evidence," she told AFP.
"While hormones can be a useful treatment for severe menopausal symptoms, they should not be used for chronic disease prevention," she added, noting that no randomised clinical trial -- the gold standard of evidence -- has found HRT beneficial for cognition or dementia prevention.
She also said that after the WHI findings were released, hormone use fell globally -- and breast cancer rates dropped across registries tracking them.
Several of the panellists had ties to companies offering menopause treatments or are affiliated with the advocacy group "Let's Talk Menopause," which receives pharmaceutical funding and campaigns to revise FDA warning labels.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Why the world must aim to eliminate PEPFAR and end the HIV epidemic
Last week, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief narrowly escaped a devastating $400 million budget cut thanks to Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who voted alongside their Democratic colleagues to protect the program. That was a relief: Since its creation under President George W. Bush in 2003, the anti-HIV/AIDS program has saved an estimated 26 million lives and allowed 7.8 million babies to be born HIV-free. But preserving PEPFAR shouldn't be seen as the end goal. Instead, global health officials should be working toward the day when the world no longer needs it. That ambitious goal might sound far-fetched, given that an estimated 1.3 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2023 globally. But consider this: Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved a drug called lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable treatment that clinical trials have shown is 100 percent effective at preventing HIV infection among young women and 96 percent effective among gay and bisexual men and transgender people. The drug has the potential to be a groundbreaking improvement over the current standard for HIV prevention, oral PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis treatment). For all its promise, oral PrEP has confronted the difficult realities of human behaviour. Adhering to a daily medication regimen is challenging under any circumstances, but especially so in communities where HIV-related stigma is pervasive. Even in wealthier countries, gay men who take the medication have been disparaged. Oral PrEP also tends to be less effective in women, though studies differ on whether this is due to lower adherence and access barriers or biological differences in how the medication is absorbed in female anatomy. Lenacapavir, manufactured by Gilead Sciences, could help address these challenges. It is discreet and can be administered privately in a clinical setting. It requires dosing only twice a year, and it is easier and less painful to administer than previous injectable drugs to prevent HIV. In the United States, lenacapavir costs more than $28,000 per person per year before insurance. But Gilead has licensed six generic manufacturers to produce the drug at cost for 120 low- and middle-income countries. Together with the Global Fund, the company has pledged to distribute 2 million doses - still a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed for population-level protection, but a meaningful start. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Of course, the drug is no silver bullet. Unfortunately none of the licensed generic manufacturers are based in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the greatest need, and scaling up production could take years. So far, the U.S. is the only country to approve it, and regulatory timelines elsewhere are likely to lag. Nevertheless, lenacapavir is exciting for what it represents: An innovation that can draw PEPFAR into a new era defined not by fighting HIV, but ending it. Advocates of the program should remember that it was designed as an emergency response to an uncontained pandemic; for it to become a permanent fixture of global health would constitute a failure of its mission. Moreover, the program is far from perfect. Like many HIV prevention programs, it often sacrifices preventative care for treatment when budgets tighten. Those trade-offs stand in the way of HIV elimination. The program is also, regrettably, subject to the whims of U.S. politics. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio restricted HIV prevention aid so that only pregnant and breastfeeding women can receive it - as if to invite more AIDS epidemics. The world has a long way to go until PEPFAR can safely be shuttered. After all, foundations and private companies cannot replace the program, which provides nearly 70 percent of global financing for HIV/AIDS response. But it's possible to imagine a future in which biomedical science and investments into a sustainable health infrastructure make the program obsolete. That's something the world should strive for. - The Washington Post
The Star
3 days ago
- The Star
WHO announces lenacapavir as a groundbreaking HIV prevention method
Tracy-Lynn Ruiters | Published 1 week ago The World Health Organization (WHO) announced a landmark policy at the 13th International AIDS Society Conference (IAS 2025) on HIV Science in Kigali, Rwanda, releasing new guidelines that recommend injectable lenacapavir (LEN) as a twice-yearly pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) option for HIV prevention. This development has the potential to significantly reshape the global HIV response. LEN is the first twice-yearly injectable PrEP product, offering a highly effective, long-acting alternative to daily oral pills and shorter-acting prevention methods. With just two doses a year, LEN marks a transformative step in HIV prevention, particularly for individuals who face challenges with daily adherence, stigma, or limited access to health care. 'While an HIV vaccine remains elusive, lenacapavir is the next best thing: a long-acting antiretroviral shown in trials to prevent almost all HIV infections among those at risk," said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. 'The launch of WHO's new guidelines, alongside the FDA's recent approval, marks a critical step forward in expanding access to this powerful tool. WHO is committed to working with countries and partners to ensure this innovation reaches communities as quickly and safely as possible.' The new guidelines come at a pivotal time, as global HIV prevention efforts have stalled, with 1.3 million new infections recorded in 2024. Key and priority populations — including sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, people who inject drugs, those in prisons, as well as children and adolescents — continue to be disproportionately affected. WHO's endorsement of LEN marks a significant step toward broadening and diversifying HIV prevention strategies, empowering people with more choices to protect their health in ways that align with their needs and circumstances. WHO has recommended a simpler, more accessible approach to HIV testing using rapid tests to support the rollout of long-acting injectable PrEP like LEN and CAB-LA. This change removes a major barrier by cutting out complex, expensive procedures and allowing delivery through local clinics, pharmacies, and tele-health. LEN now joins other WHO-approved HIV prevention options — including daily oral PrEP, injectable cabotegravir, and the dapivirine vaginal ring. Although access to LEN outside clinical trials is still limited, WHO is calling on governments and health partners to begin implementing it within national HIV prevention programmes while gathering data on its real-world use and impact. For the first time, WHO now recommends long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RPV) as an option for adults and adolescents who are already virally suppressed on oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) and don't have hepatitis B. This is especially helpful for people who struggle with daily pill-taking. WHO also updated its guidance on inte grating HIV care with other health services, such as treating high blood pressure, diabetes, mental health conditions (like depression, anxiety, and alcohol use disorders), and improving ART adherence. The organisation now recommends STI screening (gonorrhoea and chlamydia) for key and priority populations, even when no symptoms are present. For people living with HIV who have or are at risk of mpox (formerly monkeypox), WHO strongly recommends starting ART quickly, especially if they've never started treatment or have had long interruptions. HIV and syphilis testing is also advised for anyone with suspected or confirmed mpox. Given funding challenges facing global HIV programmes, WHO released new guidance to help countries maintain essential HIV services. This includes advice on how to prioritise services, manage risks, and keep health systems resilient. Dr Meg Doherty, WHO's HIV programme director, emphasised the urgency of acting on these guidelines: 'We have the tools and the knowledge to end AIDS as a public health problem. What we need now is bold implementation of these recommendations, grounded in equity and powered by communities.' HIV continues to be a major public health issue, with an estimated 40.8 million people living with the virus globally by the end of 2024. While treatment access is growing — 31.6 million people are now on ART — new infections and deaths remain high, particularly in the WHO African Region. With these updated guidelines, WHO said it is offering countries practical tools to make HIV responses more efficient, equitable, and sustainable. The focus now shifts to putting these strategies into action. [email protected] Weekend Argus
eNCA
18-07-2025
- eNCA
US may revise hormone replacement therapy warnings
WASHINGTON - US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary signalled that he is open to revising strict warning labels on Hormone Replacement Therapy, following testimony from experts who said the treatment's risks have long been exaggerated. HRT is taken to replace estrogen, the body stops producing after menopause -- when periods end permanently -- and helps relieve symptoms such as hot flashes, vaginal discomfort, and pain during sex. But its use has plummeted in recent years amid concerns, including a possible link to invasive breast cancer. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chief Marty Makary, who convened Thursday's meeting of outside experts, told AFP: "We have to revisit these topics." He argued that the framework that led to so-called "black box warnings" -- the strongest warning the FDA can require for prescription drugs -- "came from a different era." "Not only is there no clinical trial showing an increase in breast cancer mortality, but there are also other tremendous long-term health benefits," Makary added. The 12 experts convened by the agency said HRT's benefits go beyond easing menopausal symptoms. They cited evidence for reduced fracture risk, improved cardiovascular and cognitive health, and fewer urinary tract infections. "Estrogen is the only well-established intervention to reduce the frequency of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, to the tune of 30 to 50 percent," said Vonda Wright, an orthopaedic surgeon at the University of Central Florida. Roberta Diaz Brinton, director of the Center for Innovation in Brain Science, said her research suggests the reason two-thirds of people globally with Alzheimer's are women is not because they live slightly longer than men, but because the disease begins during the menopausal transition. "Depending upon when hormone therapy is introduced... there's a significant reduction in risk of developing Alzheimer's disease," she said. The University of Arizona researcher linked menopause to a drop in the brain's ability to metabolise glucose and a rise in protein plaque deposits. Panellists blamed the collapse in HRT use on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a landmark clinical trial halted in 2002 after flagging a possible increased breast cancer risk -- findings they say were misinterpreted. "Prescriptions for hormone replacement therapy plummeted in the United States, women flushed their pills down the toilet," Makary said in his opening remarks, mentioning his own mother's experience of multiple bone fractures in old age. Critics of the WHI argue it included participants well past menopause -- when risks are higher and benefits lower -- and used outdated formulations no longer common today. - Label changes - Still, the issue remains divisive within the medical community. HRT can be administered through various means and is given either as estrogen alone or with progesterone. The FDA's own warning label for it cites risks including endometrial cancer, breast cancer, and life-threatening blood clots. Adriane Fugh-Berman, who directs a project that promotes rational prescribing at Georgetown University, attended as an observer and criticized the lack of dissenting voices. "This was a very one-sided panel of people who are all proponents of hormone therapy and who seem to have a very poor understanding of the evidence," she told AFP. "While hormones can be a useful treatment for severe menopausal symptoms, they should not be used for chronic disease prevention," she added, noting that no randomised clinical trial -- the gold standard of evidence -- has found HRT beneficial for cognition or dementia prevention. She also said that after the WHI findings were released, hormone use fell globally -- and breast cancer rates dropped across registries tracking them. Several of the panellists had ties to companies offering menopause treatments or are affiliated with the advocacy group "Let's Talk Menopause," which receives pharmaceutical funding and campaigns to revise FDA warning labels.
